Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Louise

Members
  • Content Count

    293
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

432 profile views
  1. Thank you. This makes sense. And yes, I understand the motions themselves don''t need to be ratified -- that was a poor choice of word on my part. I think the idea is to approve (not ratify) the list of motions itself; however, I'm hearing you say to delete any extraneous and problematic material from the minutes and approve what's left, in which case that list of motion won't come into play.
  2. Thank you. We'll need to amend our bylaws accordingly.
  3. We've had some significant dysfunction in our organization recently, which included a secretary who didn't understand what minutes should (and shouldn't) contain. The last several sets of minutes that she prepared were not approved by the board due to inaccuracies and liability concerns. Our new secretary is not sure what to do with these minutes that aren't approved were never fixed (as the previous secretary took any recommended changes really personally). The new secretary wasn't on the board when those minutes were compiled and then rejected by the board. Is it appropriate to pull out any motions she can find, ask the board to ratify those, and compile them in a single document, and to perhaps stamp the draft minutes as "unapproved" and place them in the records alongside the ratified list of approved board motions? What is the best way to handle this?
  4. Thank you! That reference makes sense of the idea that the term follows the position rather than the person. The elections of officers tend to be staggered (so that two remain on when two leave), but that doesn't always work in practice. Perhaps a bylaw amendment clarifying this would be in order.
  5. Whew. Well, if you can't find a reference either, I guess I will stop searching for it. There's nothing in the bylaws about when specific officers serve (odd-numbered or even-numbered years) or what positions they serve alongside of, just that they serve for a two-year term or until their successors are elected. Does that make any difference?
  6. Thank you. This is the information I'm trying to confirm. Is there a reference to this in Robert's Rule's somewhere?
  7. Alas, no, that isn't it ether. That is in essence our situation as well, as it turns out. But I can't find anything specific in Robert's Rules regarding the term following the position rather than the person. In our minds, it makes more sense for the person who has already been elected to a position and served a year (the new president) to only have one year left to serve, and the person who is newly elected (the new vice-president) to serve a full two-year term rather than just the final year of the vice-president's term. However, I remembered reading The Thread that Is Not to Be Found, and we want to make sure we're doing things right, so I said I'd come and take a look to see if I could find that thread and confirm it.
  8. I thought that might be it, but no, it's not. It involved a president who resigned, causing the vice-president to become president, and a new vice-president to be appointed in place of the now-president. The old president who resigned was up for re-election, which (if I recall correctly) meant that the new president was going to be up for re-election now (even though he was only one year into his two-year term). The new vice-president, on the other hand, would be elected to a one-year term (for some reason). Does that ring any bells, or did I dream the whole thing?
  9. I recently came across a thread here that discussed the terms of appointed directors, but I'm unable to find it now. It centred around the term length being attached to the position (president, vp, etc.) rather than to the person who was appointed. Can someone point me to the section of RONR that discusses this?
  10. Snort. Not always. Only when properly motivated...
  11. And just to clarify, all nominees can be debated - not just those nominated from the floor, but also those nominated by the Nominating Committee.
  12. Ah. Right. Someday this will sink in, truly. Again, I will remember this eventually. I will. I will. This is all good to know. Thank you (yet again).
  13. Thank you, Mr. Martin. So with regard to his being chair, in one sense that is perhaps an advantage since he is supposed to remain impartial, not speak in debate, or make motions. However, if a motion is made regarding the employee and the resulting vote is a tie, what happens then? How does the chair break the tie if he's married to the employee, without looking biased? Would one solution be to have the vice-chair also not vote on such questions so that her vote can break a potential tie? Or does that muddy the waters too much? Having asked that, though, I strongly suspect that the board, the larger membership, and even the president himself are going to want to go beyond "shouldn't" speak (or be present) to "can't" speak (or be present). Does this mean we should adopt a special rule stating such, or are there potential negative ramifications if we do so? (Because it is becoming increasingly clear to me that RONR has the rules it does and not others - like the one we'd possibly like to adopt in this situation - for good reason.)
  14. Good to hear, and to know. Thank you. I don't believe we have anything in our rules that dictate this. I believe it's just what members "understand" to be the case. Of course, they didn't think the President should be presiding over the elections either, so... Does this mean our new president is free to take part in such discussions as well, even though he can't vote?
  15. I need to issue a HUGE thank you to all of you for your assistance on this issue. Of course, RONR-loser that I am, I didn't think to re-visit this thread until today. I now see that I basically ignored the proper procedure (debating each name as it is brought forward, rather than debating both of them - individually, but consecutively - right before the election took place). Ah well. There's always next time. As it turns out, there were concerns about the other nominee for president (woo hoo - we actually HAD another nominee for president), and so after nominations were closed, I asked the president (who was presiding at the meeting) if the assembly could discuss those concerns (namely, that the "challenger" is the spouse of the organization's employee). The president agreed that would be a good idea. I proceeded to ask some questions like, "Does the nominee understand the need to remove himself from meetings when the organization's employee is being discussed?" etc. etc. When that discussion was done, and before we moved to the vote, I sought the floor again, and stated that I also had a question for the other nominee for president (the incumbent and presiding officer). I guess he felt he had no choice but to let me ask. I then asked him if he had considered carefully whether or not he had the time to devote to this position, since so many of his duties had not been getting done. He answered that he had in fact considered that, and that he hoped to have more time to attend to things now. Maybe. I am beyond pleased (and relieved) to report that we have a new president. And I have RONR - and all of you - to thank for that. The debating of nominations is indeed a powerful tool. I have had a number of people thank me for saying what so many of them were thinking. Whew. Glad that meeting is done and our trajectory is looking a bit more hopeful and positive. Again, thank you, thank you, THANK you!
×
×
  • Create New...